Well put. Here's something on this issue which I posted about a month ago:
If scripture is properly understood -- not an easy task -- it doesn't contradict science at all. The trick is knowing when scripture is to be understood literally, and when it's speaking in metaphor.No one, not even the most strident fundamentalist, takes the numerous passages about "the four corners of the earth" and the "pillars of the earth" as being literally true. Why? Because we know the shape of the earth. Similarly, since Galileo's unfortunate encounter with the Inquisition over the solar system, probably even the most stubborn fundamentalist will agree with Galileo that the solar system is real, and those passages in scripture which seem to say that the earth is the unmoveable center of the universe are mere poetry. Why? Again, it's because we know enough now to realize that the solar system -- although "only a theory" -- is a very good description of reality.
The point here is that our growing understanding -- through science -- of the true nature of the universe is actually an aid to understanding scripture. The scientist, quite without realizing it, and sometimes in spite of his lack of religious conviction, is providing a kind of "reader's guide" to help us have a better understanding of scripture. Actually, the universe itself is the "reader's guide" but it's the scientist who discovers the nature of the universe. Thus, when understood in the light of science, scripture can be properly read, old misunderstandings can be corrected, and there is no conflict. Without science, we have no way of knowing if our reading of scripture is correct.
You...you mean (gasp!) that religions have had to evolve with scientific discovery? Unthinkable! [/sarcasm]